Courts: Funding

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the view expressed in The Times on 20 February by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, that the courts system may seize-up because of a funding shortfall, whether they will increase public expenditure on the courts.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Funding levels for the courts are set within the context of the overall spending review (SR) settlements for the department. We have recently completed the detailed allocation of resources across the department for the next three years, following the SR2002 settlement by the Treasury back in the summer. There have been some difficult choices in balancing competing demands for funding, but we have ensured that the focus has remained firmly on service delivery, particular in the courts. Specific measures that have been taken to protect front-line services include:
	Ensuring that funding for the courts provides the essential staffing and sitting day levels required to meet PSA targets, taking into account our current performance on criminal, civil and family waiting times and administrative process;
	Directing an additional 2,000 sitting days each year to family hearings;
	Providing increased funding to maintain existing provision of security staff, and to allow for improvements to physical security (e.g. CCTV), in the courts;
	Setting aside sufficient resource to take forward the key aspects of our IT modernisation programme across all jurisdictions.

Tribunals: Reform

Baroness Golding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to take forward reform of the tribunal system.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Reform of the justice system is one of this Government's priorities. Since 1997 we have implemented major improvements in the criminal and civil courts. In 2000 I asked Sir Andrew Leggatt to review the tribunal system. We published Sir Andrew's radical blueprint for reform—Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service—in August 2001.
	Since then the Government have been determining how best to meet the challenge set by Sir Andrew. We have taken a wide range of views, including through a formal, consultation exercise. A summary of the responses to that consultation has now been published; a copy has been placed in the Library of the House and it has been published on my department's website at www.lcd.gov.uk/civil/tribunals.htm
	The Government have decided that the best way to take tribunal reform forward is to bring most non-devolved central government tribunals together into a single service. The service will reflect the needs and specialisms of individual jurisdictions and will in particular respect the differences between party versus party and citizen versus state tribunals. It will be a distinct part of the justice system, accountable to me. Initially the new service will be based on the 10 largest tribunals. Of these, the Immigration Appellate Authorities, the Office of the Social Security and Child Support Commissions the Tax Tribunals, the Pension Appeals Tribunal, and the Lands Tribunal already form part of my department. The Appeals Service, Employment Tribunals, Mental Heath Review Tribunal, Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel will transfer to the LCD over the period 2004–05 to 2007–08 from their current parent departments. Where appropriate, other smaller tribunals will also join the new service. The Government will publish a White Paper later this year on the reform and modernisation of the tribunals justice system within an increasingly unified tribunals service.

Northern Ireland Block Grant

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the underspend in the Northern Ireland block grant in the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02; and which departments were responsible for what percentage of the underspend.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: For the 1999–2000 financial year, expenditure was recorded by departments on a cash basis. From 2000–01 onwards, expenditure has been recorded on a resource basis and therefore comparisons cannot be made on a like-for-like basis between 1999–2000 and any subsequent years. Allocations to departments are set within departmental expenditure limits (DEL) and underspends are measured against the DEL. The table below shows DEL underspends for NI departments for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.
	
		Table showing DEL underspends for NI Departments for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (£ million) 
		
			  Cash Basis 
			  Resource Basis 
			 Department 1999–00 Underspend % Underspend 2000–01 Underspend % Underspend 2001–02 Underspend % Underspend 
			 Agriculture and Rural Development 5.6 8.1 3.4 1.6 13.5 5.8 
			 Culture, Arts and Libraries 3.6 5.3 1.4 0.7 10.1 4.3 
			 Eduction 5.0 7.2 17.3 8.2 46.9 20.0 
			 Employment and Learning 3.0 4.3 51.8 24.6 39.0 16.6 
			 Enterprise, Trade and Industry 12.2 17.6 28.8 13.7 23.2 9.9 
			 Finance and Personnel 5.4 7.8 8.3 3.9 13.7 5.8 
			 Health, Social Services and Public Safety 13.8 19.9 46.8 22.3 49.1 20.9 
			 Environment 1.9 2.8 2.7 1.3 5.4 2.3 
			 Regional Development 7.1 10.3 5.2 2.5 22.5 9.6 
			 Social Development 11.3 16.3 43.2 20.5 9.2 3.9 
			 Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9 
			 Total 69.2 100 210.3 100 234.6 100

Data Protection: TfL and Congestion Charge

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the legislation governing data protection principles applies to prevent the disclosure of personal data gathered by Transport for London for the purposes of the congestion charge to other public authorities for purposes unrelated to the congestion charge.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The data protection principles—a form of statutory code of good information handling practice—are set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Among other things, the principles require personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully; and to be obtained only for specified and lawful purposes and not further processed incompatibly with those purposes. The term "processing" covers disclosure.
	The Act provides exemptions from its non-disclosure provisions in circumstances where it recognises that the public interest requires disclosures of personal data which might otherwise be in breach of its requirements. In particular, Section 29 of the Act provides an exemption from the non-disclosure provisions in cases where their application would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of any tax, duty or similar imposition.
	Section 35 provides an exemption from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by law or is necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings, obtaining legal advice or establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.
	Additionally, Section 28 provides a wide exemption from the Act's provisions, including the data protection principles, to the extent required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
	It is for Transport for London to ensure that its processing of personal data complies with the data protection principles or meets the terms of a relevant exemption. The Data Protection Act is administered independently of the Government by the Information Commissioner. Any directly affected person may request the commissioner to make an assessment as to whether it is likely that any processing of personal data has been or is being carried out in compliance with the Act.

Judicial Officers: Training in Childcare Issues

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in the specific training for all judicial officers in childcare issues before they are allowed to have a family law ticket which enables them to hear such cases.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Training of judges and magistrates is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is a body independent of government. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.
	Authorisation to hear public family law cases is governed by the Family Proceedings (Allocation to Judiciary) (Amendment) Directions 2002, which are made under the Children Act 1989.
	Before such authorisation, circuit judges must first attend the public family law induction seminar (formerly known as the residential seminar for potential nominated care judges). Most may already have attended residential private family law seminars, and heard private family law cases. District judges are also invited to attend this course when they have been authorised to hear interlocutory applications in this category, having already undergone similar training in relation to private family law.
	Thereafter, both circuit and district judges attend residential continuation seminars every three years in each jurisdiction they exercise.
	District judges (magistrates' courts) have the same care jurisdiction as lay magistrates and those who sit regularly in the Family Proceedings Court are also invited to attend the JSB public family law induction seminar as well as private family law seminars. Statutory responsibility for the training of lay magistrates currently rests with magistrates' courts committees (MCCs) under Section 64 of the Justice of the Peace Act 1979, within a framework laid down by the JSB. The current outline syllabus for the training of family panel magistrates covers childcare issues as follows: key principles of the Child Care Act 1989; the welfare principle; needs of the child/basic child development; and the role of the local authority/child protection measures.
	Specific training in care issues continues to develop. A series of seminars on the case management protocols is presently being organised for the autumn, and further seminars on the Adoption Act will follow in 2004.

Iraq: Displaced Persons

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the event of a war in Iraq, what is their estimate of the number of displaced persons on which to base a contingency plan of assistance; in how many countries this programme will be in operation; and which United Nations agency will provide overall co-ordination.

Baroness Amos: In the event of military action and significant population movements in Iraq, we would expect the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to be the lead international agency in assistance to internally displaced people and UNHCR to lead an assistance to refugees. The Department for International Development (DfID) is holding regular discussions with these and other international organisations about their contingency planning. Estimates of the numbers of people who may be displaced vary according to a range of different scenarios, and plans are being developed accordingly. UNHCR's planning covers all of Iraq's neighbouring countries. DfID is a regular contributor to ICRC's annual Iraq emergency appeals, and has given it £1 million for its 2003 appeal. DfID has also supplemented its core contributions to UN agencies with an additional £3.5 million of funding to date to support UN humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq, including for UNHCR.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs Council, 27–28 February

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 27–28 February and what their stance was on the issues discussed.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Lord Filkin represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 27–28 February.
	The A points were approved as in document PTS A 8 (6756/03) (a copy has been placed in the Library) with the exception of point 3.
	The Council discussed the draft Council decision on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. Member states remained divided on whether refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection should receive equal treatment on family unity (Article 21), access to employment (Article 24), social welfare (Article 26) and healthcare (Article 27). The Presidency reminded member states of the undertaking made at the Seville European Council to adopt the text by June.
	The Council reached a general approach on the draft Council directive on the right to family reunification subject to consideration of the European Parliament's opinion and one parliamentary scrutiny reserve. The UK has not opted in to the adoption of this measure.
	The Commission set out its ideas for strengthening of the procedures for passport control at the Schengen entry points, designed to tighten existing controls on the entry of third country nationals at Schengen borders. Two member states presented a joint paper on the future use of biometrics in visas and residence permits. Lord Filkin stressed the importance of work in this area being carried out in line with existing international standards. He also invited the Commission to examine ways of using Eurodac data to assist in identifying those who overstayed in the Schengen area.
	The Commission gave a short presentation of the forthcoming feasibility study on improving sea-borders control, proposing the creation of three maritime zones covering the western, central and eastern Mediterranean.
	This was followed by an orientation debate concerning the effectiveness of financial resources available at Community level for dealing with migration issues. Lord Filkin called for appropriate budget and burden-sharing mechanisms and urged the Commission to produce its report on burden-sharing before June. One member state called for an increase in the Community budget to support JHA-related work on burden sharing, while two others argued for restructuring of the European Refugee Fund to allow money to be used for repatriation measures.
	During the open debate on fighting organised crime in the western Balkans the Presidency underlined its commitment to action in the Balkans and the need for concrete follow-up to the London conference on organised crime in South East Europe. The Presidency also reiterated the view that responsibility for change rested with governments in the region. Lord Filkin focused on the need to move from rhetoric to action, to implement the commitments made at the London conference and to develop appropriate mechanisms to monitor progress. He also underlined that countries in the region must co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Other member states highlighted the importance of reinforcing the rule of law, the creation of stable institutions and of increased police co-operation in response to the trafficking of drugs and people through the Balkans.
	The Council suspended negotiations with the US on the draft agreements between the EU and USA on judicial co-operation in criminal matters and on extradition which remained subject to a reservation by one member state. The Presidency undertook to prepare documents for member states' use for the purpose of consulting their national parliaments on the proposed agreements.
	The Council discussed the outstanding issues on the draft framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. There was agreement that the scope of offences in Article 1 should not include acts directed against a group of persons defined by reference to their "belief". However, a recital was proposed explaining that the use of the word "religion" could include persons "defined by reference to their religious convictions or belief".
	Member states remained divided on the scope of criminal liability in Article 8. Four delegations favoured the inclusion of a provision obliging member states to derogate from dual criminality for mutual legal assistance in relation to offences of racism and xenophobia if they applied the stricter test for criminal liability. The UK and five other member states opposed. Lord Filkin reiterated the need to strike a balance between effective measures on racism and xenophobia and freedom of speech; he noted that improvements to judicial co-operation arrangements should be pursued through mutual recognition initiatives.
	The Council discussed a list of offences for which cross-border fines would be enforced in the absence of dual criminality in the draft framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. A majority of delegations, including the UK, were content to use the list adopted for the European arrest warrant, adding road traffic offences and six other types of conduct. However, one member state said that the European arrest warrant list was unsuitable for this instrument and three others had reservations on the inclusion of specific offences.
	The Council reached a general approach on the draft framework decision on attacks against information systems subject to consideration of the recitals, the European Parliament's opinion and parliamentary scrutiny reserves from five member states.
	Under "Any Other Business", the Commission gave a progress report on the implementation of the Afghan Return Programme. Voluntary returns were due to commence on 1 April 2003. Over lunch, the Commission reported on negotiations with Switzerland for its participation in Schengen arrangements. There was also a discussion of current counter-terrorism arrangements, including the role of Europol.

Asylum Applicants Claiming Iraqi Nationality: Language Testing

Lord Christopher: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether language tests are in place to test asylum applicants claiming to be of Iraqi nationality.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the light of concern that some asylum applicants from other countries are posing falsely as nationals from Iraq, we have decided to pilot language analysis testing for use in cases where appropriate when a person claiming Iraqi nationality applies for asylum. Language testing arrangements in such cases will start on 12 March 2003 and continue for an initial period of one month.
	The purpose of language analysis is to provide expert evidence which helps to identify the place of origin of asylum seekers. Language analysis is used in a number of European countries, and the results have been generally successful. In the UK, language analysis has been used already in the case of asylum claims made by nationals claiming to be from Afghanistan, Somalia or Sri Lanka. It was found to be a valuable aid in the asylum consideration process, clearly identifying in many instances that the applicant was not of the nationality he or she claimed to be, or not from the area of the country from which they claimed to originate. Language anaysis also benefited genuine applicants by confirming the information they gave about their nationality.
	The extension of language testing to nationals from Iraq is being given legal effect today by an authorisation made by myself under section 190 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Where there are objective reasons for doubting the nationality of a person claiming to be from Iraq, the authorisation will enable staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to request the applicant to undertake a further interview which will be taped and sent to a language expert for analysis. Individuals may refuse to consent to this further interview (which will be conducted at the initial screening stage), but this refusal can be taken into account when determining whether the applicant has established the facts of their case. This may lead to their claim being refused.
	We will review the need for this further authorisation later in the year. Independent scrutiny of the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and how they are operated in practice by officials is exercised by the Race Monitor, Mary Coussey, who reports to Parliament via the Secretary of State.
	A copy of the additional authorisation has been placed in the Library of the House. Any additional or amended authorisations will also be placed in the Library.

Drivers: Eyesight Tests

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 26 February (WA 42), why there are no requirements for eyesight tests to be conducted after road traffic accidents.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Current provisions already allow a police officer to require a driver to take an eye-test where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the driver's uncorrected eyesight might have contributed to a road traffic accident. The Government are satisfied that these powers are adequate and have no plans to introduce a requirement for routine eye-testing.
	In 2001 there were 228 driving incidents in which eyesight might have been a factor. There are however approximately 750,000 road traffic accidents in Great Britain each year. Routine eye-testing after each would represent an unnecessary and onerous extra burden on the police.
	It is in individual drivers' own interests to ensure that their eyesight meets the required standard for safe driving. The Department for Transport has recently introduced a public information film that emphasises the importance of eyesight to driving.

Drivers: Eyesight Tests

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 26 February (WA 42-43, whether they will press for all drivers over 45 to show that they have had their eyes tested within the past two years and have taken action, if necessary, on the results.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Department for Transport has been encouraging the European Commission for several years to approach the question of medical standards for driver licensing (including eyesight) on a rational basis commanding appropriate consensus of opinion. Last month we secured international agreement to set up an expert working group to deal with this issue and to make recommendations. UK representatives will play a full part in that group and will ensure that recommendations take account of research in the UK and elsewhere.

Drivers: Eyesight Tests

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received that drivers, driving with "below eyesight test" levels of sight, have been responsible for road traffic accidents.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Government have received written representations on the issue of defective eyesight and driving from a number of individuals and a few organisations, including Specsavers Optical Group and the National Federation of Women's Institutes. No official statistics are available attributing road traffic accidents to specific medical conditions, including defective eyesight.

Elections: Guidance to Civil Servants

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the guidance for United Kingdom civil servants on devolved and English local elections.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Copies of the guidance that has been issued to civil servants in UK departments on their role and conduct in the forthcoming election campaigns in Scotland and Wales and the local elections in England have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Employment on Ships: Race Relations Act

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will amend the Race Relations Act 1976 as it relates to employment on ships in the light of obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by European Union equality legislation; and, if so, what amendments they will make.

Lord Filkin: As part of a package of proposals for implementing the EC Article 13 Race Directive, set out in the consultation document Equality and Diversity: The Way Forward, the Government have made proposals in respect of Section 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976. (Section 9 currently provides an exception from the RRA in circumstances where an individual is engaged for employment on a ship outside Great Britain.) The responses to the consultation exercise are currently being analysed and policy is being developed in the light of the responses.
	The Government aim to implement the Race Directive by its deadline of 19 July. Regulations will be laid before Parliament in the spring.

Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they accept the recommendations in the ninth report of the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency.

Lord Rooker: I am pleased to announce the Government's acceptance of all the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Standards (APOS) for the Planning Inspectorate Agency, as set out in the ninth annual report published in November 2002. APOS jointly advises the First Secretary of State and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government on the maintenance and improvement of quality standards for the Planning Inspectorate.
	The panel's main finding was that the demanding quality standard target, that 99 per cent of the inspectorate's casework should be free from justified complaints, was being maintained. However, the panel also made a number of recommendations on steps that could be taken to further enhance quality standards. These included improvements to training and procedures, which have already been implemented, and the introduction of arrangements to correct simple errors within decision letters which is included in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before Parliament. The remaining recommendations are all part of a continuous process of training, development and monitoring, such as the introduction of a rolling customer satisfaction survey, to build on the experiences of users of the system.
	I am particularly pleased to note the panel's comments on the good work of the inspectorate in encouraging diversity within the organisation, in promoting training interchange schemes to develop staff and in encouraging electronic access to information for the public and other interested parties through its Planning Portal project. These initiatives are playing an important part in the Government's wider initiative to promote planning as a positive instrument and to involve the community more effectively.
	I commend the work of the panel and thank them for their helpful recommendations, and look forward to seeing further results of their hard work over the next year.

Constitution Committee Report on Devolution: Government Response

Lord Merlyn-Rees: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will respond to the House of Lords' Constitution Committee's report Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom.

Lord Rooker: I am pleased to announce to the House that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing the Government's reponse to the House of Lord's Constitution Committee report Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom. The response is published as CM 5780 and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The response will also be made available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

Water Sports: Safety Measures

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What water sports safety measures have been legislated for or activated in the past two years.

Baroness Blackstone: No legislation concerning water sports safety measures has been introduced or activated within the past two years.
	The Government have promoted a number of key initiatives to help sport improve its safety provision. At present UK Sport is in the process of producing guidance information on health and safety issues for sport. The aim is to provide support which will be of assistance to governing bodies of sport but which will avoid overly bureaucratic systems and procedures. This will include a summary of existing legislative requirements placed on governing bodies; sports-focused risk assessment templates which governing bodies might use and disseminate among their member organisations; and case studies covering health and safety policies and practices of different types of sport.

Broadband

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 19 November 2001 (WA 115), whether they have arrived at a conclusive definition of broadband in respect of data transfer speeds for (a) the commercial market; and (b) the residential market.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government view broadband as a generic term describing a range of technologies operating at various data transfer speeds.

Broadband

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the recent announcement that the United Kingdom has in excess of a million broadband subscribers, whether the data transfer speeds of these connections are all in excess of 384kbit/second; and, if not, what is the breakdown of data transfer speeds of these connections.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Oftel estimates that by the end of February 2003 there were over 1.5 million broadband connections in the UK. Not all these connections offered data transfer speeds in excess of 384kbps.
	In order to assure a consistent definition for take-up, Oftel includes all services marketed as broadband in its monthly broadband statistics. These are based on publicly available information from operators such as BT, Telewest and ntl and include services ranging from 128kbps to over 1mbps. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the statistics by data transfer speed, as this information is provided on a commercially confidential basis.

NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What financial arrangements are being made in respect of the 59 National Health Service trusts dissolved in 2002–03, in connection with the new NHS trusts and primary care trusts established in the year.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Pursuant to the dissolution of 59 National Health Service trusts on 1 April 2002 and their reconfiguration through the establishment of 19 new NHS trusts, we propose to create originating capital for the new NHS trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.
	A number of primary care trusts were also established during the year. Public dividend capital is not required for the establishment of new primary care trusts as they are subject to a different financial regime. Net assets transferred from dissolving NHS trusts to primary care trusts are reflected in the general fund of the primary care trust.
	These operations involved no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

CITB and ECITB: Quinquennial Review

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When will they begin the quinquennial reviews of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB).

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, my department is today beginning reviews of the industrial training boards, CITB and ECITB. Following Cabinet Office guidelines, the terms of reference for the first stage of the review will be:
	To review the functions of the boards, and the likely need in the future for these functions;
	To consider whether some or all of the functions can be better performed through other means;
	To review the efficiency and effectiveness of the boards in carrying out their functions;
	To consider the powers, terms of reference, constitutional status, membership and activities of the boards;
	To ensure initial findings are available for consideration in and, if appropriate, incorporation into, the Government's skills strategy;
	To report the outcome of Stage 1 of the review by June 2003.
	We should welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the reviews from all those with an interest in the work of the CITB and ECITB. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by 30 April to:
	Anne Donkin
	Department for Education and Skills
	E4c
	Moorfoot
	Sheffield S1 4PQ
	or by e-mail to: anne.donkin@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
	We have asked that this first stage of the review should be completed by 27 June 2003.

Coal-fired Generation Plants

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the total amount of coal burnt at coal-fired generation plants with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment in each year between 1997 and 2002 compared with the amount at plants without FGD; and
	What was the total amount of sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired generation plants with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment in each year since 1997 and 2002 compared to the amount emitted from plants without FGD; and
	What was the average amount of sulphur dioxide emissions per gigawatt generated from coal-fired plants with the flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment in 2002 or the latest 12-month period available, compared with the equivalent figure from plants without FGD.

Lord Whitty: The following table contains the information requested:
	
		Statistics for UK coal-fired plant 1997 to 2000 with and without flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment
		
			   Year(1) 
			 Question Unit 1997 1998 1999 2000 
			 Total amount of coal burnt with FGD 000s tonnes 12,298 12,838 11,396 11,540 
			 Total amount of coal burnt without FGD 000s tonnes 33,025 33,789 28,187 38,565 
			 Total amount of SO2 emitted with FGD 000s tonnes 50 135 54 45 
			 Total amount of SO2 emitted without FGD 000s tonnes 941 922 704 756 
			 Average amount of SO2 emitted per gigawatt generated  with FGD 000s of tonnes per GWh —(3) 4.09(2) 1.79 1.48 
			 Average amount of SO2 emitted per gigawatt generated  without FGD 000s of tonnes per GWh —(3) 10.77 9.79 8.74 
		
	
	(1) Data for 2001 and 2002 not yet available.
	(2) The FGD plant at AES Drax was out of commission for much of the year.
	(3) Data not available.

Non-producing Milk Quota Holders: ECJ Ruling

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the consequences of the European Court of Justice ruling in the Thomsen case for non-producing milk quota holders.

Lord Whitty: The ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Thomsen case has important implications for UK dairy farmers. It means that quota holders who do not produce against their quota for one year will have it confiscated to the national reserve. In effect, non-producing milk quota holders (NPQHs) will no longer be able to hold quota. Leasing out of quota will not be enough to avoid confiscation.
	There has understandably been considerable interest in the timetable for implementation of the ruling in the UK. We can confirm that the new rules will apply from 1 April 2004. Accordingly NPQHs who have not produced against their quota in 2003–04 will be allowed until 31 March 2004 to sell it. If they do not do so by that date, it will be confiscated to the national reserve. During the 2003–04 quota year NPQHs may lease out quota if they so wish.
	Currently, NPQHs who lose their quota may apply for its restoration within six years of confiscation if they resume active production. However, under current EC proposals this period may be reduced to two years.
	In association with this, we shall be going out to consultation later in the year on the possible introduction of a 70 per cent usage rule. Under such a rule, producers who do not use at least 70 per cent of their quota over a period to be fixed would have all or part of the unused portion confiscated to the national reserve. The introduction of such a rule would depend on the outcome of the consultation exercise. Subject to final confirmation of the legal base, we also propose to consult on breaking the link between quota and land, which will make it easier for tenants to buy in their own right any quota released by NPQHs.
	We recognise that the change concerning NPQHs is an important one and have publicised the new rules widely, including sending individual letters to all NPQHs. We believe that we have put in place a fair transitional arrangement that both allows NPQHs a reasonable period of time to adjust to the new circumstances and also recognises the UK's obligations under Community law.